Chapter IV: Of the Church, Baptism, the Supper and Confession (Articles VII–XI)

p. 161 Articles VII and VIII: Of the Church

The seventh article of our Confession, in which we said that “the Church is the congregation of saints,” they have condemned; and have added a long disquisition, that the wicked ought not to be separated from the Church, since John has compared the Church to a threshing-floor, on which wheat and chaff are heaped together (Matt. 3:12), and Christ has compared it to a net in which there are both good and bad fishes (13:47). What they say is indeed true, viz. that there is no remedy against the attacks of the slanderer. Nothing can be spoken with such care that it can avoid detraction. For this reason, we have added the eighth article, lest any one may think that we separate the wicked and hypocrites from the outward p. 162 fellowship of the Church, or that we deny efficacy to the sacraments when they are administered by hypocrites or wicked men. Therefore there is no need here of a long defence against this slander. The eighth article is sufficient to exculpate us. For we grant that in this life hypocrites and wicked men have been mingled with the Church, and that they are members of the Church according to the outward fellowship of the signs of the Church, i. e. of Word, profession and sacraments, especially if they have not been excommunicated. Neither are the sacraments without efficacy for the reason that they are administered by wicked men; yea we can even be right in using the sacraments, which are administered by wicked men. For Paul also predicts (2 Thess. 2:4) that Antichrist will sit in the temple of God, i. e. he will rule and bear office in the Church. But the Church is not only the fellowship of outward objects; and rites, as other governments, but it is in principle a fellowship of faith and the Holy Ghost in hearts. [The Christian Church consists not alone in fellowship of outward signs, but it consists especially in inward communion of eternal blessings in the heart, as of the Holy Ghost, of faith, of the fear and love of God]; which fellowship nevertheless has outward marks so that it can be recognized, viz. the pure doctrine of the Gospel, and the administration of the sacraments in accordance with the Gospel of Christ. [Namely, where God’s Word is pure, and the sacraments are administered in conformity with the same, there certainly is the Church, and there are Christians.] And this Church alone is called the body of Christ; because Christ renews, [Christ is its Head and] sanctifies and governs it by his Spirit, as Paul testifies (Eph. 1: sq.), when he says: “And gave him to be the head over all things to the Church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.” Wherefore those in whom Christ does not act [through his Spirit] are not the members of Christ. This too the adversaries acknowledge, viz. that the wicked are dead members of the Church. Therefore we wonder why they find fault with our description [our conclusion concerning the Church] which speaks of living members. Neither have we said anything new. Paul has defined the Church precisely in the same way (Eph. 5: sq.), that it should be cleansed in order to be holy. And he adds the outward marks, the Word and sacraments. For he thus says: “Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the Word, that he might present it to himself, a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that it should be holy and without blemish.” In the Confession we have presented this sentence almost in the very words. Thus also the Church is p. 163 defined by the article in the Creed, which teaches us to believe that there is “a Holy Catholic Church.” The wicked indeed are not a holy Church. And that which follows, viz. “the communion of saints,” seems to be added, in order to explain what the Church signifies, viz. the congregation of saints, who have with each other the fellowship of the same Gospel or doctrine [who confess one Gospel, have the same knowledge of Christ] and of the same Holy Ghost, who renews, sanctifies and governs their hearts.

Parallel passages: CHAP. IV. ART. VII. Apostles’ Creed, 3; Nicene Creed, 8; Augsburg Confession, Arts. vii. and xv.; Smalcald Articles, Art. xii.; Small Catèchism, Art. iii. of Creed; Large Catechism, do.; Formula of Coward Sol. Decl., x. § 19; xii. § 5.

And this article has been presented for a necessary reason. [The article of the Catholic or Universal Church, which is gathered together from every nation under the sun, is very comforting and highly necessary.] We see the infinite dangers which threaten the destruction of the Church. In the Church itself, infinite is the multitude of the wicked who oppress it. Therefore, in order that we may not despair, but may know that the Church will nevertheless remain [until the end of the world], likewise that we may know that however great the multitude of the wicked is, yet the Church [which is Christ’s bride] exists, and that Christ affords those gifts which he has promised to the Church, to forgive sins, to hear prayer, to give the Holy Ghost; this article in the Creed presents us these consolations. And it says Catholic Church, in order that we may not understand the Church to be an outward government of certain nations [that the Church is like any other external polity, bound to this or that land, kingdom or nation, as the Pope of Rome will say], but rather men scattered throughout the whole world [here and there in the world from the rising to the setting of the sun], who agree concerning the Gospel, and have the same Christ, the same Holy Ghost, and the same sacraments, or have human traditions that are the same or dissimilar. And the gloss upon the Decrees¹ says that “the Church in its wide sense embraces good and evil;” likewise that the wicked are in the Church only in name, not in fact; but that the good are in the Church both in fact and in name. And to this effect, there are many passages in the Fathers. For Jerome says, “The sinner, therefore, who has been stained by any impurity, cannot be called a member of the Church of Christ, neither can he be said to be subject to Christ.”

¹ Decrees of Gratian, Part II., Cons. 33, ques. 3, dist. 1, c. 70.

Although, therefore, hypocrites and wicked men are members of the true Church according to outward rites, yet when the Church is defined, it is necessary to define that which is the living body of Christ, and likewise is in name and in fact the Church [which is called the body of Christ, and has fellowship not alone in outward signs, but has gifts in the heart, p. 164 viz. the Holy Ghost and faith]. And for this there are many reasons. For it is necessary to understand what it is that principally makes us members and living members of the Church. If we will define the Church only as an outward polity of the good and wicked, men will not understand that the kingdom of Christ is righteousness of heart and the gift of the Holy Ghost [that the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, as nevertheless it is; that therein Christ inwardly rules, strengthens and comforts hearts, and imparts the Holy Ghost and various spiritual gifts], but they will judge that it is only the outward observance of certain forms of worship, and rites. Likewise what difference will there be between the people of the Law, and the Church, if the Church be an outward polity? But Paul¹ distinguishes the Church from the people of the Law, thus, that the Church is a spiritual people, i. e. that it has been distinguished from the heathen not by civil rites [not only in the polity and civil affairs], but that it is the true people of God, regenerated by the Holy Ghost. Among the people of the Law, the carnal seed [all those who by nature were born Jews, and Abraham’s seed] had, in addition to the promise concerning Christ, promises also of corporeal things, of government, etc. And for these reasons even the wicked among them were said to be the people of God, because God had separated this carnal seed from other nations by certain outward ordinances and promises; and, yet, these wicked persons did not please God. But the Gospel [which is preached in the Church] brings not merely the shadow of eternal things, but the eternal things themselves,² the Holy Ghost and righteousness, by which we are righteous before God. [But every true Christian is even here upon earth, partaker of eternal blessings, even of eternal comfort, of eternal life, and of the Holy Ghost, and of righteousness which is from God, until he will be completely saved in the world to come.]

¹ Rom. 2:28, sqq.; Gal. 6:15.

² Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:5.

Therefore, only those are the people, according to the Gospel, who receive this promise of the Spirit. Besides the Church is the kingdom of Christ, distinguished from the kingdom of the devil. It is certain, however, that the wicked are in the power of the devil, and members of the kingdom of the devil, as Paul teaches, Eph. 2:2, when he says that the devil “now worketh in the children of disobedience.” And Christ says to the Pharisees, who certainly had outward fellowship with the Church, i. e. with the saints among the people of the Law; for they held office, sacrificed and taught: “Ye are of your father, the devil” (John 8:44). Therefore, the Church p. 165 which is truly the kingdom of Christ is properly the congregation of saints. For the wicked are ruled by the devil, and are captives of the devil; they are not ruled by the Spirit of Christ.

But what need is there of words in a manifest matter? If the Church, which is truly the kingdom of Christ, is distinguished from the kingdom of the devil, it is necessary that the wicked, since they are in the kingdom of the devil, are not the Church; although in this life, because the kingdom of Christ has not yet been revealed, they are mingled with the Church, and hold offices in the Church. Neither are the wicked the kingdom of Christ, for the reason, that the revelation has not yet been made. That which he quickens by his Spirit is always the kingdom of Christ, whether it be revealed or be covered by the cross. Just as he who has now been glorified, is the same Christ who was before afflicted. And with this the parables of Christ clearly agree, who says (Matt. 13:38) that “the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one.” “The field,” he says, “is the world,” not the Church. Thus John speaks concerning the whole race of the Jews, and says that it will come to pass that the true Church will be separated from that people. Therefore, this passage is more against the adversaries than in favor of them, because it shows that the true and spiritual people is to be separated from the carnal people. Christ also speaks of the outward appearance of the Church, when he says (Matt. 13:47): “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net,” likewise “to ten virgins,” and he teaches that the Church has been covered by a multitude of evils, in order that this stumbling-block may not offend the pious; likewise, in order that we may know that the Word and sacraments are efficacious even when administered by the wicked. And meanwhile he teaches that these godless men, although they have the fellowship of outward signs, are nevertheless not the true kingdom of Christ, and members of Christ. They are members of the kingdom of the devil. Neither indeed are we dreaming of a Platonic state, as some wickedly charge, but we say that this Church exists, viz. the truly believing and righteous men scattered throughout the whole world. [We are speaking not of an imaginary Church, which is to be found nowhere; but we say and know certainly that this Church, wherein saints live, is and abides truly upon earth; namely, that some of God’s children are here and there in all the world, in various kingdoms, islands, lands and cities, from the rising of the sun to its setting, who have truly learned to know Christ and his Gospel.] And we add the marks: “the pure doctrine of the Gospel [the office of the ministry or Gospel], and the sacraments.“

p. 166 And this Church is properly the pillar of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15). For it retains the pure Gospel, and, as Paul says (1 Cor. 3:12), “the foundation,” i. e. the true knowledge of Christ and faith. Although among these [in the body which is built upon the true foundation, i. e. upon Christ and faith], there are also many weak persons, who upon the foundation build stubble that will perish, i. e. certain unprofitable opinions [some human thoughts and opinions], which nevertheless, because they do not overthrow the foundation, are both forgiven them, and also corrected. And the writings of the holy Fathers testify that sometimes even they built stubble upon the foundation, but that this did not overthrow their faith. But most of those errors which our adversaries defend, overthrow faith; as their condemnation of the article concerning the remission of sins, in which we say that the remission of sins is received by faith. Likewise manifest and pernicious is the error, in that the adversaries teach that men merit the remission of sins by love to God, prior to grace. For this also is to remove “the foundation,” i. e. Christ. Likewise what need will there be of faith, if the sacraments justify ex opere operato, without a good disposition on the part of the one using them? But just as the Church has the promise that it will always have the Holy Ghost, so it has also the threatenings that there will be wicked teachers and wolves. The Church properly so called is that which has the Holy Ghost. Although wolves and wicked teachers go about in the Church, yet they are not properly the kingdom of Christ. Just as Lyra also testifies, when he says: “The Church does not consist of men, with respect to power, or ecclesiastical or secular dignity, because many princes, and archbishops, and others of lower rank, have apostatized from the faith. Therefore, the Church consists of those persons in whom there is a true knowledge and confession of faith and truth.” What else have we said in our Confession than what Lyra here says?

But the adversaries perhaps require that the Church be thus defined, viz. that it is the supreme outward monarchy of the whole world, in which the Roman pontiff necessarily has the absolute power (which no one is permitted to dispute or censure) to frame articles of faith, to abolish, according to his pleasure, the Scriptures [to pervert and interpret them contrary to all divine law, contrary to his own decretals, contrary to all imperial rights, as often, to as great an extent, and whenever it pleases him; to sell indulgences and dispensations for money], to appoint rites of worship and sacrifices; likewise to frame such laws as he may wish, and to dispense and exempt from whatever laws, divine, canonical or civil, which he may wish; and that from him the Emperor and all kings receive, p. 167 according to the command of Christ, the power and right to hold their kingdoms. For as the Father has subdued all things beneath him, this right should be understood as transferred to the Pope; therefore the Pope must necessarily be lord of the whole world, of all the kingdoms of the world, of all things private and public, and must have absolute power in temporal and spiritual things, and both swords, the spiritual and temporal. Besides this definition, not of the Church of Christ, but of the papal kingdom, has as its authors not only the canonists, but also Daniel 11:36 sqq. [Daniel, the prophet, represents Antichrist in this way.]

But if we would define the Church, in this way, we would perhaps have fairer judges. For there are many things extant written extravagantly and wickedly concerning the power of the Pope of Rome, on account of which no one has ever been arraigned. We alone are blamed, because we proclaim the beneficence of Christ, that by faith in Christ we obtain remission of sins, and not by [hypocrisy or] rites of worship devised by the Pope. Moreover, Christ, the prophets and apostles define the Church of Christ far otherwise than as the papal kingdom. Neither must we transfer to the priests what belongs to the true Church, viz. that they are pillars of the truth, that they do not err. For how many of them care for the Gospel, or judge that it is worth being read? Many even publicly ridicule all religions, or, if they approve any, they approve those which are in harmony with human reason, and regard the rest fabulous and like the tragedies of the poets. Wherefore we hold, according to the Scriptures, that the Church properly so called, is the congregation of saints [of those here and there in the world], who truly believe the Gospel of Christ, and have the Holy Ghost. And yet we confess that, in this life, many hypocrites and wicked men, mingled with these, have the fellowship of outward signs, who are members of the Church according to this fellowship of outward signs, and accordingly bear offices in the Church [preach, administer the sacraments, and bear the title and name of Christians]. Neither does the fact that the sacraments are administered by the unworthy, detract from their efficacy, because, on account of the call of the Church, they represent the person of Christ, and do not represent their own persons, as Christ testifies (Luke 10:16): “He that heareth you, heareth me” [Thus even Judas was sent to preach]. When they offer the Word of God, when they offer the sacraments, they offer them in the stead and place of Christ. The Word of Christ teaches this, in order that we may not be offended by the unworthiness of the ministers.

But concerning this matter, we have spoken with sufficient p. 168 clearness in the Confession,¹ that we condemn the Donatists and Wickliffites, who thought that men sinned when they received the sacraments from the unworthy in the Church. These things seem, for the present, to be sufficient for the defence of the description of the Church which we have presented. Neither do we see how, when the Church properly so called is named “the body of Christ,” it should be described otherwise than we have described it. For it is evident that the wicked belong to the kingdom and body of the devil, who impels and holds captive the wicked. These things are clearer than the light of noonday, which, if the adversaries still continue to pervert, we will not hesitate to reply at greater length.

¹ Aug. Conf. viii.: 3.

The adversaries condemn also the part of the seventh article y. in which we said that “to the unity of the Church, it is sufficient to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel, and the administration of the sacraments; nor is it necessary that human traditions, rites, or ceremonies instituted by men should be alike everywhere.” Here they distinguish between “universal” and “particular” rites, and approve our article, if it be understood concerning particular rites; they do not receive it concerning universal rites. We do not sufficiently understand what the adversaries mean. We are speaking of true, i. e. of spiritual unity [we say that those are one harmonious Church, who believe in one Christ; who have one Gospel, one Spirit, one faith, the same sacraments, and we are speaking, therefore, of spiritual unity], without which faith in the heart, or righteousness of heart before God, cannot exist. For this we say that similarity of human rites, whether universal or particular, is not necessary, because the righteousness of faith is not a righteousness bound to certain traditions [outward ceremonies of human ordinances] as the righteousness of the Law was bound to the Mosaic ceremonies, because this righteousness of the heart is a matter that quickens the heart. To this quickening, human traditions, whether they be universal or particular, contribute nothing; neither are they effects of of the Holy Ghost, as are chastity, patience, the fear of God, love to one’s neighbor and the works of love.

Neither were the reasons trifling why we presented this article. For it is evident that many foolish opinions concerning traditions had crept into the Church. Some thought that human traditions were necessary services for meriting justification [that without such human ordinances, Christian holiness and faith are of no avail before God; also that no one can be a Christian unless he observe such traditions, although they are nothing but an outward regulation]. And afterwards they disputed p. 169 how it came to pass that God was to be worshipped with such variety, as though indeed these observances were acts of worship, and not rather outward and political ordinances, pertaining in no respect to righteousness of heart or the worship of God, which vary, according to the circumstances, for certain probable reasons, sometimes in one way, and at other times in another [as in worldly governments one state has customs different from another]. Likewise some Churches have excommunicated others because of such traditions, as the observance of Easter, pictures and the like.¹ Hence the ignorant have supposed that faith, or the righteousness of the heart before God, cannot exist [and that no one can be a Christian] without these observances. For many foolish writings of the Summists² and of others, concerning this matter are extant.

¹ According to Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, v.: 23-25), Victor, Bishop of Rome (about 196, A. D.) excommunicated the Churches of Asia Minor, on account of differences concerning the celebration of Easter. In the eighth and ninth centuries, anathemas were pronounced in the Greek, Roman and Frank Churches concerning images.

² Those who wrote summaries either of canonical law, or ethics; especially the scholastics of the thirteenth century.

But just as dissimilar spaces of day and night do not injure the unity of the Church, so we believe that the true unity of the Church is not injured by dissimilar rites instituted by men. Although it is pleasing to us that, for the sake of tranquillity [unity and good order] universal rites be observed. Just as also in the Churches, we willingly observe the order of the mass,³ the Lord’s Day, and other more eminent festival days. And with a very grateful mind, we embrace the profitable and ancient ordinances, especially since they contain a discipline, by which it is profitable to educate and instruct the people and those who are ignorant. But now we are not discussing the question whether it be of advantage to observe them on account of peace or bodily profit. Another matter is treated of. For the question at issue is, whether the observances of human traditions be acts of worship necessary for righteousness before God. This is the point to be judged in this controversy, and when this is decided, it can afterwards be judged whether to the true unity of the Church it is necessary that human traditions should everywhere be alike. For if human traditions be not acts of worship necessary for righteousness before God, it follows that even they can be righteous and be the sons of God who have not the traditions which have been received elsewhere. As if the style of German clothing is not worship of God, necessary for righteousness before God, it p. 170 follows that men can be righteous, and sons of God, and the Church of Christ, even though they use a costume that is not German, but French.

³ The order of Lessons in the Mass, Augsburg Confession, xxvi. 40.

Paul clearly teaches this to the Colossians (2:16, 17): “Let no man, therefore, judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holyday, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.” Likewise (v. 20 sqq.): “If ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances (touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using), after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a show of wisdom in will-worship and humility.” For the meaning is: Since righteousness of the heart is a spiritual matter, quickening hearts, and it is evident that human traditions do not quicken hearts, and are not effects of the Holy Ghost, as are love to one’s neighbor, chastity, etc., and are not instruments through which God admonishes hearts to believe, as are the divinely-given Word and sacraments, but are usages with regard to matters that pertain in no respect to the heart, which perish with the using, we must not believe that they are necessary for righteousness before God. And to the same effect, he says, Rom. 14:17: “The kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.” But there is no need to cite many testimonies; since they are everywhere obvious in the Scriptures, and, in our Confession, we have brought together very many of them, in the latter articles.¹ And the point to be decided in this controversy must be repeated afterwards, viz. whether human traditions be acts of worship necessary for righteousness before God? There we will discuss this matter more fully.

¹ Augsburg Confession, xxvi. 22-29; xxviii. 44-48.

The adversaries say that universal traditions are to be observed because they are supposed to have been handed down by the apostles. What religious men they are! They wish that the rites derived from the apostles be retained; they do not wish the doctrine of the apostles to be retained. They must judge concerning these rites, just as the apostles themselves judge in their writings. For the apostles did not wish us to believe that through such rites we are justified, that such rites are necessary for righteousness before God. The apostles did not wish to impose such a burden upon consciences; they did not wish to place righteousness and sin in the observance of days, food and the like. Yea Paul calls such opinions doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4:1). Therefore the will and advice of the apostles ought to be derived from their p. 171 writings; it is not enough to mention their example. They observed certain days, not because this observance was necessary for justification, but in order that the people might know at what time they should assemble. They observed also certain other rites, and order of lessons, whenever they assembled. The people retained also from the customs of the fathers [from their Jewish festivals and ceremonies], as is commonly the case, certain things which, being somewhat changed, the fathers adapted to the history of the Gospel, as the Passover, Pentecost, so that not only by teaching, but also through these examples, they might hand down to posterity the memory of the most important subjects. But if these things were handed down as necessary for justification, why afterwards did the bishops change many things in these very matters? But if they were matters of divine right it was not lawful to change them by human authority. Before the Synod of Nice, some observed Easter at one time, and others at another time. Neither did this want of uniformity injure faith. Afterward the plan was adopted, by which our passover [Easter] did not fall at the same time as that of the Jewish passover. But the apostles had commanded the Churches to observe the passover with the brethren who had been converted from Judaism. Therefore after the Synod of Nice, certain nations tenaciously held to the custom of observing the Jewish time. But the apostles, by this decree, did not wish to impose necessity upon the Churches, as the words of the decree testify. For it bids no one to be troubled, even though his brethren, in observing Easter, do not compute the time aright. The words of the decree are extant in Epiphanius: “Do not calculate, but celebrate it whenever your brethren of the circumcision do; celebrate it at the same time with them, and even though they may have erred, let not this be a care to you.” Epiphanius writes that these are the words of the apostles presented in a decree concerning Easter, in which the discreet reader can easily judge that the apostles wished to free the people from the foolish opinion of a fixed time, when they prohibit them from being troubled, even though a mistake should be made in the computation. Some,¹ moreover, in the East, who were called, from the author of the dogma, Audians, contended, on account of this decree of the apostles, that the passover should be observed with the Jews. Epiphanius, in refuting them, praises the decree, and says that it contains nothing which deviates from the faith or rule of the Church, and blames the Audians because they do not understand aright the expression, and interprets it in the sense in which we interpret it, because the apostles did not believe that it referred to p. 172 the time in which the passover should be observed, but because the chief brethren had been converted from the Jews, who observed their custom, and, for the sake of harmony, wished the rest to follow their example. And the apostles wisely admonished the reader neither to remove the liberty of the Gospel, nor to impose necessity upon consciences, because they add that they should not be troubled even though there should be an error in making the computation.

¹ Germ. omits §§ 43, 44.

Many things of this class can be inferred from the histories, in which it appears that a want of uniformity in human observances does not injure the unity of faith [separate no one from the universal Christian Church]. Although what need is there of discussion? The adversaries do not at all understand what the righteousness of faith is, what the kingdom of Christ is, if they judge that uniformity of observances in food, days, clothing and the like, which do not have the command of God, be necessary. But look at the religious men, our adversaries. For the unity of the Church, they require uniform human observances, although they themselves have changed the ordinance of Christ in the use of the Supper, which certainly was before a universal ordinance. But if universal ordinances are so necessary, why do they themselves change the ordinance of Christ’s Supper, which is not human, but divine? But concerning this entire controversy, we will have to speak at different times below.

p. 172 Of the Eighth Article

The entire eighth article has been approved, in which we confess that hypocrites and wicked persons have been mingled with the Church, and that the sacraments are efficacious even though distributed by wicked ministers, because the ministers act in the place of Christ, and do not represent their own persons, according to Luke 10:16: “He that heareth you, heareth me.” Impious teachers’ are to be deserted, because these do not act any longer in the place of Christ, but are antichrists. And Christ says (Matt. 7:15): “Beware of false prophets.” And Paul (Gal. 1:9): “If any man preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed.”

But Christ has warned us in his parables concerning the Church, that, when offended by the private vices, whether of priests or people, we should not excite schisms, as the Donatists have wickedly done. We judge, as altogether seditious,² p. 173 those indeed who excited schisms for the reason that they maintained that the priests should not be permitted to hold possessions or property. For to hold that which is one’s own is a civil ordinance. It is lawful, however, for Christians to use civil ordinances, as the air, the light, food, drink. For as nature and the fixed movements of the heavenly bodies, are truly God’s ordinances and we are preserved by God, so lawful governments are truly God’s ordinances, and are retained and defended by God against the devil.

² The followers of Wycliffe. Cf. Wycliffe’s Dialogues, L. iv., Cap. 17.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. viii.; Large Catechism, Part v., § 15 sqq.; Formula of Concord, Sol. Dec. xii., §§ 14, 34.

p. 173 Article IX: Of Baptism

The ninth article has been approved, in which we confess that “baptism is necessary to salvation,” and that “children are to be baptized,” and that “the baptism of children is not in vain, but is necessary and effectual to salvation.” And since the Gospel is taught among us purely and diligently, by God’s favor we receive also from it this fruit, that in our Churches no Anabaptists have arisen [have not gained ground in our Churches],¹ because the people have been fortified by God’s Word, against the wicked and seditious faction of these robbers. And as we condemn most other errors of the Anabaptists, we condemn this also, that they dispute that the baptism of little children is unprofitable. For it is very certain that the promise of salvation pertains also to little children [that the divine promises of grace and of the Holy Ghost belong not alone to the old, but also to children]. Neither indeed does it pertain to those who are outside of Christ’s Church, where there is neither Word nor sacraments, because the kingdom of Christ exists only with the Word and sacraments. Therefore it is necessary to baptize little children, that the promise of salvation may be applied to them, according to Christ’s command (Matt. 28:19): “Baptize all nations.” Just as there salvation is offered to all, so baptism is offered to all, to men, women, children, infants. It clearly follows, therefore, that infants are to be baptized, because with baptism salvation [the universal grace and treasure of the Gospel] is offered.

¹ Reference is made especially to the Churches of Upper Saxony. F.

Secondly, it is manifest that God approves of the baptism of little children. Therefore the Anabaptists who condemn the baptism p. 174 of little children, believe wickedly. That God, however, approves of the baptism of little children, is shown by this, viz. that God gives the Holy Ghost to those thus baptized [to many who have been baptized in childhood]. For if this baptism would be in vain, the Holy Ghost would be given to none, none would be saved, and finally there would be no Church.¹ [For there have been many holy men in the Church who have not been baptized otherwise.] This reason, even taken alone, can sufficiently establish good and godly minds against the godless and fanatical opinions of the Anabaptists.

Parallel passages: Nicene Creed, § 9; Augsburg Confession, Art. 1x.: Smalcald Articles, P. iii., Art. v.; Small Catechism, P. iv.; Large Catechism, Proleg. § 21, Part iv.; Formula of Concord, Sol. Dec. xii.: 10–13; Visitator Articles, iii.

¹ These words are taken from Augustine, De pecc. merit. et remiss., I.: 19

p. 174 Article X: Of the Holy Supper

The tenth article has been approved, in which we confess that we believe, that, “in the Lord’s Supper, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered, with those things which are seen, bread and wine, to those who receive the sacrament.” This belief we constantly defend, as the subject has been carefully examined and considered. For since Paul says (1 Cor. 10:16) that the bread is the communion of the Lord’s body, it would follow, if the Lord’s body were not truly present, that bread is not a communion of the body, but only of the Spirit of Christ. And we have ascertained that not only the Roman Church affirms the bodily presence of Christ, but the Greek Church also both now believes and formerly believed the same. For the canon of the Mass among them testifies to this, in which the priest clearly prays that the bread may be changed and become the very body of Christ. And Vulgarius, who seems to us to be not a silly writer, says distinctly that “bread is not a mere figure, but is truly changed into flesh.” And there is a long exposition of Cyril on John in which he teaches that Christ is corporeally offered us in the Supper. For he says thus: “Nevertheless, we do not deny that we are joined spiritually to Christ by true faith and sincere love. But that we have no mode of connection with him, according to the flesh, this indeed we entirely deny. And this we say is altogether foreign to the divine Scriptures. For who has doubted that Christ is thus a vine, and we indeed are branches, deriving thence life for ourselves? Hear Paul saying (1 Cor. 10:; Rom. 12:; Gal. 3:28) that we are all one body in Christ, that, although ‘ we p. 175 are many, we are, nevertheless, one in him; for we are all partakers of that one bread.’ Does he perhaps think that the virtue of the mystical benediction is unknown to us? Since this is in us, does it not also by the communication of Christ’s flesh, cause Christ to dwell in us bodily?” And a little after: “Whence we must consider that Christ is in us not only according to habit, which is understood as love, but also by natural participation,” etc. We have cited these testimonies, not to undertake a discussion here, concerning this subject (for His Imperial Majesty does not disapprove of this article), but in order that all who may read them, may the more clearly perceive that we defend the doctrine received in the entire Church, that, in the Lord’s Supper, the body and blood of Christ are truly and substantially present, and are truly tendered with those things which are seen, bread and wine. And we speak of the presence of the living Christ [living body]; knowing that “death hath no more dominion over him” (Rom. 6:9).

Parallel passages: Aug. Conf., Art. x.; Smalcald Articles, P. iii., Art. vi.; Small Catechism, Part v.; Large Catechism, Proleg. § 23 sqq., Part v.; Formula of Concord, Epitome, and Sol. Dec. c. vii.

p. 175 Article XI: Of Confession

The eleventh article, “Of Retaining Absolution in the Church,” is approved. But they add a correction, in reference to confession, viz. that the regulation be observed, headed, Omnis utriusque,¹ and that annual confession be made, and although all sins cannot be enumerated, yet that diligence be employed in order that they be recollected, and those which can be recalled, be recounted. Concerning this entire article, we will speak at greater length afterwhile,² when we will explain our entire opinion concerning repentance. It is well known that we had so elucidated and honored [that we have preached, written and taught in a manner so Christian, correct and pure] the benefit of absolution and the power of the keys, that many distressed consciences have derived consolation from our doctrine; since they have heard that it is the command of God, nay rather the utterance peculiar to the Gospel, that we should believe the absolution, and regard it certain that the remission of sins is freely granted us for Christ’s sake; and that we should believe that, by this faith, we are truly reconciled to God [as though we heard a voice from heaven]. This belief has encouraged p. 176 many godly minds, and, in the beginning, brought Luther the best recommendation to all good men; since it shows consciences sure and firm consolation; because previously the entire power [entire necessary doctrine of repentance and] of absolution had been kept suppressed by doctrines concerning works, since the sophists and monks teach nothing of faith and free remission [but pointed men to their own works, from which nothing but oubt proceeds in alarmed consciences].

¹ Canon xxi., Fourth Lateran Council, A. D. 1215.

² Apology, Art. v.

Parallel passages: Augsburg Confession, Art. xi.; xxv.; Apology, Art v.: 11 sqq., 169; Art. vi., 185; Smalcald Articles, Art. viii., 321; Small Catechism, Part VI.

But with respect to the time, certainly the most in our 6a churches use the sacraments, absolution and the Lord’s Supper frequently in a year. And those who teach of the worth and fruits of the sacraments, speak in such a manner as to invite the people to use the sacraments frequently. For concerning this subject, there are many things extant written by our theologians in such a manner, that the adversaries, if they are good men, will undoubtedly approve and praise them. Excommu- 6i nication is also pronounced against the openly wicked and the despisers of the sacraments. These things are thus done, both according to the Gospel and according to the old canons. But a fixed time is not prescribed, because all are not ready in like manner at the same time. Yea if all would hasten together at the same time, the people could not be heard and instructed in order [so diligently]. And the old canons and Fathers did not appoint a fixed time. The canon speaks only thus:¹ “If any enter the Church and be found never to commune, let them be admonished. If they do not commune, let them come to repentance. If they commune [if they wish to be regarded Christians], let them not for ever be excluded. If they have not done this, let them be excluded.” Christ [Paul] says (1 Cor. 11:29), that those who eat unworthily, eat judgment to themselves. The pastors accordingly do not compel those who are not qualified to use the sacraments.

¹ Council of Toledo, A. D. 400, Canon xiii.

Concerning the enumeration of sins in confession, men are thus taught, in order that snares be not cast upon consciences. Although it is of advantage to accustom inexperienced men to enumerate some things, in order that they may be the more readily taught, yet we are now discussing what is necessary according to divine law. Therefore, the adversaries ought not to cite for us the regulation Omnis utriusque, which is not unknown to us, but they ought to show from the divine law that an enumeration of sins is necessary for obtaining their remission. The entire Church, throughout all Europe, knows what sort of snares, this point of the regulation, which commands that all sins be confessed, has cast upon consciences. Neither has the text by itself as much disadvantage as the p. 177 Summists afterwards imagined, who collect the circumstances¹ of the sins. What labyrinths were there! How great a torture for the best minds! For these incitements of terror moved in no way licentious and profane men.

¹ Council of Trent also requires confession of these, § 14, cap. 5.

Afterwards what tragedies did the questions concerning one’s own priest,² excite among the pastors and brethren [monks of various orders], who then were by no means brethren, when they were warring concerning jurisdiction of confessions! We, therefore, believe that, according to divine law, the enumeration of sins is not necessary. This also is pleasing to Panormitanus and very many other learned jurisconsults.³ Nor do we wish to impose necessity upon the consciences of our people by the regulation, Omnis utriusque, of which we judge, just as of other human traditions, that they are not acts of worship necessary for justification. And this regulation commands an impossible matter, that we should confess all sins. It is evident, however, that we neither remember most sins, nor understand them [nor do we indeed even see the greatest sins], according to Ps. 19:13: “Who can understand his errors?”

² The “Omnis utriusque“commands that to him all sins be confessed.

³ Augsburg Confession, xxv.: 12.

If the pastors are good men, they will know how far it is of advantage to examine [the young and otherwise] inexperienced persons; but we do not wish to sanction the torture of the Summists, which notwithstanding would have been less intolerable if they had added one word concerning faith, which comforts and encourages consciences. Now, concerning this faith, which obtains the remission of sins, there is not a syllable in so great a mass of constitutions, glosses, summaries, books of confession. Christ is nowhere read there. Only the lists of sins are read. And the greater part is occupied with sins against human traditions, and this is most vain. This doctrine has forced to despair many godly minds, which were not able to find rest, because they believed that by divine law an enumeration was necessary: and yet they experienced that it was impossible. But other faults of no less moment where in the doctrine of the adversaries concerning repentance, which we will now recount.